Hector
Avalos and others have recently and infamously argued that biblical
studies, as we know them, are at an end, or should be. I agree.
With one minor caveat: Atheistic
biblical studies are at an end: this because a-theistic biblical
studies are a Sackgasse,
a dead end.

"It is no secret that I
have proposed to end biblical studies as
we know it.
Biblical studies, as we know it, is still largely a religionist and
apologetic enterprise meant to serve the needs of faith communities.
It is still part of an ecclesial-academic complex."

And
again, I agree. Biblical studies, as we know it, needs to end. But
Avalos is wrong concerning the reason because biblical studies isn’t
at all primarily a religionist and apologetic enterprise in the
academy, it is thoroughly “a-theistic’” (in the
sense of the alpha privative prefix in Greek) in its approach and
goals in the academy. Only a person who has never bothered to attend
a meeting of the SBL or read the Journal
of Biblical Literature
or visited a Department of Religion (at, say, the University of North
Carolina where Bart Ehrman teaches) could say without their tongue
being firmly planted in their cheek that biblical studies is
dominated by some sort of faith perspective. Indeed, I would submit
for your consideration that in Colleges and Universities across the
United States where Departments of Religion exist, that the
preponderance of work is purely “a-theistic.”

The
Bible is regularly and with delight approached as nothing more than a
collection of ancient texts which hold nothing more than topics of
interest to those with arcane gazes. It is simply ridiculous to
assert that faith matters in university study of the Bible. And it
has been that way for as long as I can remember (which is a good long
while now).

To
be sure, Seminaries and Graduate Schools which have as their purpose
the preparation of clergy toss in faith talk; but let’s be real
for a moment. Most pastors who have received even Seminary training
are not really aided by it to do ministry and interpret Scripture to
congregations purely because even in Seminaries not necessarily
theistic approaches to Scripture dominate.

No,
Avalos is dead wrong and his point of view limps and hobbles,
crippled by cruel reality. It is not Biblicism or fideism which
dominate, it is a-theism.

So
where has this approach gotten us? It has gotten us a population
utterly ignorant of the contents and meaning of the Bible. It has
gotten us a generation of young people who can’t tell the
difference between an Epistle and an Apostle. And it has gotten us
learned societies which produce journals which propagate and
promulgate a-theism to the exclusion of theism. Yes, faith is
excluded, a
priori,
from most biblical studies enterprises. Even mocked in some quarters
(as for instance, Avalos and Ehrman’s writings).

It
is, then, not a faith approach that is a dead end and which needs to
be concluded, but unbelief which is the true Sackgasse.
When fideism ruled people on the street and in the classroom could
be expected to be, and were in fact, biblically literate. Not so any
longer and obviously because a-theism’s methodologies obscure
the biblical text far more often than they illuminate it. So, once
more, it’s time for a-theism qua
dominant approach to biblical studies to come to a well-deserved end.

There
are historical reasons for this. First, and foremost, the Bible is
the Church’s book (and the Synagogue’s) (pace
Philip Davies!). People of faith wrote it, preserved it, collected
it, and passed it along. Faith is the string which holds the pearls
(of texts) together. Atheists and unbelievers didn’t write a
word of it, transmit it, preserve it, or pass it along. No one can
argue with the fact that the Bible is the book of the people of
faith. It belongs to us. Not to the atheists. They are now and
have been and always will be outsiders to it. Their point of view,
then, is as mere observers. Atheists are to biblical studies what
television commentators are to a sporting event: they are off the
field, in a booth, secure behind glass, opining concerning what
others should have or could have done without ever bothering to take
the field themselves.

Second,
Scripture asserts its nature as “insider literature” and
honest investigators have to take that assertion seriously. Paul
writes to the Corinthians (1 Co 2):

"The Spirit searches all
things, even the deep things of God. (11) For who among men knows the
thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the
same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
(12) We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is
from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
(13) This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but
in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in
spiritual words. (14) The man without the Spirit does not accept the
things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to
him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually
discerned. (15) The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but
he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: (16) “For
who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ."

It
is verse 14 in particular that is relevant for our present purposes.
The simple fact is, spiritual things require spiritual enlightenment
which only the Spirit of God can provide. The Scriptures are
“spiritual” texts and were written intentionally to be
exactly that. I’m certain that even the most dishonest atheist
will admit that. Given that simple fact, if we follow Paul’s
logic, it takes a person endowed with the Spirit of God to
understand, to interpret, them. Hence, spiritless exegesis is no
exegesis at all. Atheist exegesis is, by definition, spiritless and
therefore – according to the very texts which they attempt to
interpret – empty, void, vapid, pointless, meaningless. Taking
the word of an atheist concerning the meaning of Scripture seriously
is like taking a man born blind’s word concerning the meaning
of blue. It is absurdity.

To
be sure, atheists can be excellent outside observers. They can
examine context and history and “text” as “textual
artifact”; but they cannot interpret, they cannot explain, they
cannot exegete- for they lack the requisite tool- spiritual
understanding. This is precisely, exactly why unbelievers cannot,
and normally do not, and absolutely under any circumstances should
not, write commentaries. Avalos and Ehrman have at least in their
favor the fact that they haven’t attempted what for them would
be an utter and absolute impossibility: the production of meaningful
comment on biblical texts. Commentaries are about meaning. And
atheists cannot hear, so they self evidently cannot speak plainly or
clearly concerning the Bible.

Are
biblical studies at an end? No. Should biblical studies become the
purview of angry atheists? No. Those very angry atheists have led
society down a dead end street. Their time is over. Their work
becomes less and less meaningful the more they focus on the minutiae
of meaninglessness. Essays by those whose understanding is blinkered
by purely secular approaches in learned journals only serve the
purpose of bolstering the sense of self-importance of those engaged
in the industry
of biblical studies. They speak to no one and they mean nothing.

Authentic
biblical studies will more and more be found among the people of
faith who value the bible and who understand it because they are
endowed by the Spirit with the gift of understanding. Farewell,
a-theism. You were amusing, for a while, but now you’re time
is over and your discipline so completely fragmented that, like
Humpty Dumpty, you can never be put back together again.